Jeff Glucker, a.k.a. jglucker, had his head handed to him by the Twitter mob. It must have been the little head. The emasculated editor of Autoblog caved in to the rabid rabble and sacrificed a supposedly sexist headline. What happened?

The British tabloid milked the blonde stereotype for all it’s worth (or not):

“This was the moment when a woman driver caused a £700,000 five-car pile-up as her Bentley collided with a Mercedes, Ferrari, Porsche and Aston Martin. Disaster struck as the hapless blonde negotiated the traffic around the Place du Casino in her £250,000 Bentley Azure.”

The Daily Mail could not possibly pass-up on the story. After all, according to Wikipedia, the Daily Mail “was, from the outset, a newspaper for women, being the first to provide features especially for them, and is still the only British newspaper whose readership is more than 50% female.” It even has a column called “Femail today.” The paper demonstrated its sensitivity towards its female readership by regaling it with statistics:

“Scientists at the University of Michihan (sic) looked at 6.5million car crashes and found a higher than expected number of accidents between two female drivers. They also discovered that women have a tough time negotiating crossroads, T-junctions and slip roads.”

Jeff Glucker also could not say no. At Autoblog, he ran the story under the headline “Female driver causes supercar catastrophe in Monte Carlo.” The Autoblog associate editor, who according to his Twitter profile loves “cars, dachshunds, good drinks and the Caribbean,” carefully resisted the allure of any alliterations beyond “causes catastrophe.” Where this reporter would have tinkered with something along the lines of “Blundering buxom blondes brutalize big buck Bentley, smash several supercars ,” Jeff didn’t even mention “blonde.”

Ever the car guy, he questioned the reported damage estimates “in the neighborhood of $65,000” which according to Jeff’s trained eye (and the opinion of his wiener dog) seem “laughably low.” That restraint did not spare Jeff the wrath of the PC-armed PC crowd. The dogloving autoblogger found himself at the receiving end of a twitter riot: “What’s w/ the sexist ‘female driver causes catastrophe’” was tweeted and reteweeted several times, thereby spreading the chauvinistic copy all over the twitterverse.

Then Glucker did something we would never do here at TTAC: He caved in. Changing “Female driver causes supercar catastrophe in Monte Carlo” to an insipid “Driver causes supercar catastrophe in Monte Carlo” did not mollify the masses.

PS: We would not have even noticed the story and could have saved our vindictive vitriol for other occasions, would we not have received an email with the subject line “Would ttac.com change headlines or content to please complainers?”

Our answer: No.

If we make factual mistakes, we fix them. If we hurt feelings – tough.

Now that’s funny!!! Bertel, you’re much better at writing headlines than the autoblog editor. And Jeff Glucker should have learned from Pres O’s mistake
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/the-candidates-choice/

Not only tabloids, also UK’s Daily Telegraph had this under the photo:
“Hundreds of tourists watched in shock as the hapless blonde crashed her £250,000 Bentley Azure outside the Principality’s Place du Casino. The driver of a white Mercedes S Class worth £75,000 was the first victim as the Bentley scraped down the side of it before crashing into a £140,000 black Ferrari F430. An Aston Martin Rapide worth £140,000 and an £80,000 Porsche 911 both suffered damage after being involved in the incident.”

It’s cool TTAC is small and can remain independent whether reviewing cars or headlines. :)

Glucker probably did the right thing changing the so headline quickly before a small deal became a big deal. He’s part of AOL and Hufffington Post, and wants and needs to cultivate a female readership (Daily Mail is already established with female readers and as a result, has more leeway). The man’s got to pick his battles.

That said, I agree the original headline showed thought and restraint. But I’m a guy so maybe I don’t understand. Anyway, I find TTAC is even more valuable because of this.

Leave it to a “progressive” to play the race card when race is irrelevant to the topic at hand. How is your comment relevant to this thread or my comment except for your slavish need to demonstrate your orthodox progressive piety?

FWIW, I don’t identify as “white”. My family ultimately comes from the Middle East and I share a lot more genetic material with Arabs than with Europeans. If you consider Arabs to be “brown” or some other form of “people of color”, you can’t call Jews “white”.

BTW, are you sure you want to get into the “they’re rich so they can’t be discriminated against” meme? The last time I looked, gay men do much better financially than average. I sure as hell can’t afford a house in San Fran.

Ronnie, you played this card first with your ad hominem* attack on feminism—an attack you’ve made in past topics, I might add, and using language that has crossed the line into mean-spirited misanthropism.

Don’t come crying when someone calls you on it, or dares to use the same tactic.

And do I care that you’re Jewish? No, not at all, and it didn’t even cross my mind. For one, it’s all one big Indo-European family, taxonomically speaking. For another, it’s highly lame to pull the “I’m Jewish, that gives me a Get out of Jail Free Card” to excuse mean-spiritedness. Third, in socioeconomic terms in North America, Jews may as well be “white” in the way that, say, Hispanics (also partly Indo-European, FWIW), blacks and First Nations are not.

The point, though, is you we the first one air the chip on your shoulder about feminism, and how hard done by men supposedly are despite all objective evidence to the contrary. I’m just pointing out how specious such point is.

Personally, I find it very interesting that in this thread, the first thin-skinned-ness wasn’t about how the headline was a bit raw towards women, but how men are somehow “oppressed”. Who is thin-skinned now?

@Psar: He was clearly railing against the same thing most of the sane people here are.
The abuse of power for censorship on a whim.
The employment by the humorless, advantaged PC-megalomaniacs, of a social bludgeon to silence even a slightly winking fun piece is a litmus test positive for their social arrogance.

And where it should not be; due to their all-too-recent roots.
You give the women their liberation, and look what they do with it.

The roots they seem to have forgotten. -As Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right.

But women and feminist men clearly just have not learned that.
Nor have they learned a sense of humanity, humor or tolerance for anyone who disagrees or doesn’t hew EXACTLY to their specs.
They don’t want “Equal”; they want Revenge; they want Dominion.*

And in this case, their solution is to leverage twitter-publicized political pressure on peoples’ bosses,
and the typical backlash-sexist shaming scripts to enforce their publication standards,

–>thereby shipping any/all dissidents off to an ideological Siberian gulag of obscurity and unemployment.

.
You are deliberately blinkering yourself because of political dogma. I wish you were better than that.

.
+++++And honestly, if you are going to persist in being a racist against American white males, maybe it’s just about time that TTAC management go ahead boot you off the site;

–perhaps losing a few comment-pageviews in the churn, but saving a great many of us normal people the headache of having you around.

.
.
*you can check the divorce boards if you want to delve even deeper on women who will gleefully abuse any power they can get.
** no, I’m not divorced.

“Place du Casino”: Been there, lots of good shopping, much higher than average chance of running into bleach blondes and supercars, or them running into you… (maybe that’s why the guy with the Tesla plugs-in in the underground parking garage instead of on the circle…

“loves his dachshund”: Isn’t there a law against that?

Summary: His headline could just have well been “Ditz causes…” then everybody would have known what the pics say. His biggest crimes are 1) didn’t know how to write a better headline, and 2) even with what he wrote, he was a big wuss that caved-in where it wasn’t necessary.

I have no problem with winking sexism, but being oblivious to the sexism is amateurish. You should at least know you’re not being PC and own it to the death. Otherwise you appear to be suffering from Freudian slippage.

To anyone who survived the 1950’s (and it’s obvious that some of you didn’t), the stereotyping of the original Daily Mail story was blatantly inappropriate. If this sort of thing was routine, then “Hormonal wimp with small penis involved in costly car accident” would be a daily event in the press. The woman’s hair color was irrelevant to the story, and it didn’t belong in the headline.

Then again, the Daily Mail is a third-rate tabloid that has little merit in the first place. I wouldn’t worry about its quality of reporting any more than I’d concern myself with the journalistic standards of Barely Legal. If it was a real newspaper, then the vitriol would be deserved, but it isn’t much of a newspaper.

It’s interesting, this kind of thing is routine, you’re just deliberately blind to it. Men are routinely disparaged in all sorts of ways in the media and in advertising. What men and boys do naturally is considered unfortunate at best. The notion that men compensate for having small penises by driving sports cars or SUVs has never once raised your ire in these comment threads.

It’s only when women are criticized that sensitive feminist men get upset. They’re perfectly willing to have their own gender demonized just so long as they get to be considered morally pure. The thing is, they think that will help them score with females, but the most they’ll ever be is a beta provider while their “feminist” is out boinking alpha bad boys.

When I see you protesting comments about men driving SUVs or sports cars to compensate for their small penises, or protesting commercials based around the concept of stupid men put right by wise women, or getting in a feminist’s face when she disparages all men with a comment like “testosterone poisoning”, then I’ll believe that your comment is anything other than a reflexive recitation of progressive piety or an attempt to score points with a feminist chick.

Men are routinely disparaged in all sorts of ways in the media and in advertising.

You might be a happier, er, person if you got out more, didn’t whine so much, and took it easy with this woe-is-us routine.

The Daily Mail headline wasn’t particularly appropriate, and the Autoblog headline wasn’t much better. The story was (allegedly) about the number and the cost of the cars involved (although we really know it was about the swank location where it occurred and the babetasticness of the perpetrator.) As far as journalistic standards goes, neither one was correct.

And it wouldn’t be any more appropriate to have a headline that read “Right wing likudist jew involved in costly car accident” had it been you. The fact that such a headline would be factually accurate would not be the point; it would be a no-brainer to conclude that only an anti-Semite would choose to craft such a headline, as your politics and creed have no bearing whatsoever on the story.

You might be a happier, er, person if you got out more, didn’t whine so much, and took it easy with this woe-is-us routine.

And I’m certain that you don’t have the balls to say something like this to a whining, humorless feminist.

And it wouldn’t be any more appropriate to have a headline that read “Right wing likudist jew involved in costly car accident” had it been you. The fact that such a headline would be factually accurate would not be the point;

“Inappropriate”: the modern scold’s all purpose term.

Actually it would be grossly factually inaccurate, just another one of your reflexive non-thinking bumper sticker slogans that you substitute for actual thought. Yeah, I know you progressives think that Likud=Nazi (while ignoring, as per progressive double standards, the actual mass murderers in Hamas and Fatah – but then Likudniks don’t wear those oh so fashionable keffiyahs that you can wear in solidarity with those same mass murderers), and because you know absolutely nothing about Israeli politics you use it as a shorthand for “conservative Jew that I’d like to accuse of dual loyalty so I’ll use a codeword like “likudist” so my fellow travelers will get the point” but the simple fact is that I’ve never been a member of Likud, nor have I supported them financially. I had and have respect for Menachem Begin, a great man, a true statesman, but I wasn’t a member of his party. Besides, Likud today is a shadow of its former self.

it would be a no-brainer to conclude that only an anti-Semite would choose to craft such a headline

I wonder if you also don’t capitalize Muslim. I’m sure that you learned in grade school that words like Muslim, Christian and Jew are capitalized. Since you’re not writing in all lower case letters, one must assume that your lack of capitalizing “likudist” (political parties get capitals too, I’m sure that if I capitalized “Republicans” and never did the same with Democrats you would be agrieved) and “jew” is meant to disrespect those groups. You’re probably one of those folks who think that Arabs can’t be anti-Semites because they, too, are “Semites” (actually, they aren’t, Semite is a linguistic, not ethnological term and the phrase “anti-Semite” was in fact coined by a Jew hater who wanted to put a more educated face on his hatred). Since you respect Arabs, Semites get a capital S. I’ll leave it to the B&B to determine what your lack of a capital J says about your distaste for Jews.

Not so much fun when the shoe of spurious accusation of bigotry is on the other foot, is it?

And I’m certain that you don’t have the balls to say something like this to a whining, humorless feminist.

You’d be wrong about that. But we don’t get many of them around here.

Actually it would be grossly factually inaccurate

No, in your case, it would be dead accurate, if we are to believe the internet persona that you have constructed. You have claimed to be Jewish, you are undoubtedly right-wing, and I have no doubt that you support the Likud party. So all you need to do now is to have an expensive multi-car pileup, and you could have the same headline.

The point is that it isn’t just about accuracy. The headline should relay facts that are relevant. In this instance, gender isn’t really relevant, so from a journalistic standpoint, it was certainly inappropriate.

That being said, we’re talking about the Daily Mail, a tabloid just a half-rung above the Murdoch tabloids, and Autoblog, which does a great job of making an interesting subject boring. It ultimately doesn’t matter much what they’ve done, but that doesn’t mean that they followed good protocol.

I wonder if you also don’t capitalize Muslim.

OK, seriously now, you need to work on toning down that persecution complex of yours. You’re so busy misinterpreting and misrepresenting the positions of your “enemies” that you consistently see things in peoples’ writing that isn’t there.

That’s a particularly bad quality if you are going to insist on playing journalist, as you spend far more time distorting what you read than you do understanding it. I’ve basically learned to doubt everything that you write, as you appear to be incapable of factchecking it or representing it accurately.

No, in your case, it would be dead accurate, if we are to believe the internet persona that you have constructed. You have claimed to be Jewish, you are undoubtedly right-wing, and I have no doubt that you support the Likud party.

I’m not a member of Likud, nor do I give them money, and I have serious disagreements with many of the positions that Likud and its leaders have taken over the years. How that adds up to “no doubt” that I support that political party only makes sense when using progressive math.

Am I more sympathetic to Likud than Labor? Labor is a socialist party, how could any rational person support them in the 21st century? For what it’s worth, a supermajority of Israelis, including those who vote for Labor, think that your buddy in the White House is no friend of theirs.

That being said, we’re talking about the Daily Mail, a tabloid just a half-rung above the Murdoch tabloids,

Those papers were tabloids long before Rupert was a gleam in his Australian father’s eye. It’s just that Murdoch is a bete noire on the left, just like “likudist” and “jew”.

I wonder if you also don’t capitalize Muslim.

OK, seriously now, you need to work on toning down that persecution complex of yours. You’re so busy misinterpreting and misrepresenting the positions of your “enemies” that you consistently see things in peoples’ writing that isn’t there.

You say that you’d tell off a humorless feminist. Would you tell a black person that they have a persecution complex?

It can be argued that going off on a Jew for having a “persecution complex” is itself a form of Jew-hatred, since it implicitly minimizes the historical persecution of Jews.

I learned the playbook well from my “progressive” teachers.

I’ll simply note that you didn’t deny that your lack of capitalizing the word “jew” was deliberate.

Was it deliberate? Isn’t it curious that your only inappropriate (you like that word) use of lower case was in “likudist” and “jew”?

I’ve basically learned to doubt everything that you write, as you appear to be incapable of factchecking it or representing it accurately.

Oh well, one can’t make everyone happy. To the point of your comment, why do you even bother reading TTAC? Just to come out from under your bridge and fling some feces? If my writing is unreliable, don’t blame me, blame Ed and Bertel, they’re the ones who decide if my work is up to snuff.

If I’m not factually accurate or misrepresenting things, take it up with the management, because this form of an attack on one of the writers is tantamount to flaming the editors.

Do I make factual errors? Sure, and when readers correct my factual errors, I don’t argue with them, I thank them for the correction. Sometimes I’ll write something off the top of my head and get it wrong. Unlike you, though, I don’t hide behind an internet pseudonym. I write under my own name and have always commented at TTAC with my own name and take the slings and arrows that come with that.

I know how much research that I do when I write a piece for publication. I don’t like to be wrong in public. When I’m genuinely and factually wrong, I try to be gracious to those who offer constructive criticism.

You’ve already been chastised by Ed for seeing political bias in pieces that had no partisan axes to grind. There are plenty of TTAC readers who offer embarrassingly high praise for my work. I suppose I should keep a record of them, but that would be haughty, though for factual purposes I will point out that it’s not uncommon for readers, commenting on my articles, to say that they are the kinds of articles that keep them coming back to TTAC. The B&B seem to think that I’m a decent and entertaining writer. YMMV, it’s a free country.

The other writers will tell you that I’ve said complimentary things about Psar, because though we disagree politically, for the most part he keeps things substantive and actually engages in debate, not just namecalling.

Unlike others who are just partisan hacks who pretends to like cars so they can use the comment threads in TTAC as their personal political soapbox.

You’re more than welcome to start your own car blog with your own point of view. Good luck finding readers who share your views or think them thoughtful and worth reading.

I’m not a member of Likud, nor do I give them money, and I have serious disagreements with many of the positions that Likud and its leaders have taken over the years.

I see. Probably too liberal for you.

Those papers were tabloids long before Rupert was a gleam in his Australian father’s eye.

But they’re owned by Murdoch now, and they’re not very good. If reading the Sun can’t convince you of that, then you’re beyond hope.

It can be argued that going off on a Jew for having a “persecution complex” is itself a form of Jew-hatred, since it implicitly minimizes the historical persecution of Jews.

I’m saying that you have a persecution complex because you have one. I wouldn’t fault Judaism or any other religion for that — I’d lay the blame for it entirely on you.

You whine a lot. You play victim constantly. You look for enemies who aren’t there, in a black-and-white world of your own creation. It’s as if Joe McCarthy came back from the grave and started commenting on a car blog.

I wouldn’t frankly care, except for the fact that this same problem also badly compromises your reading comprehension skills, which makes for some very sloppy writing. It’s one thing to read between the lines, but you take it much further by making up your bizarro strawman versions of what your “enemies” say, including on this very thread where you routinely take a few thousand miles whenever you’ve been given just an inch. What’s sad is that you don’t even seem to realize that you’re doing it.

Again, you didn’t deny that your lack of capitalization of “jew” was intentional. I’ve given you two opportunities to do so, but instead you keep attacking me.

I’ll leave it up to the B&B to decide just why you chose to deliberately not capitalize Jew.

Perhaps you are not a Jew-hater and are just a Jew-baiter, trying to get a rise out of me, while coyly saying “Who? Me?”

Or perhaps it was just a typo. But you also didn’t capitalize “likudist”. Since you clearly don’t like Likud and you didn’t give them an appropriate (there’s that word again) upper case letter, it stands to reason that you didn’t capitalize “jew” for the same reason.

Again, you didn’t deny that your lack of capitalization of “jew” was intentional.

Your paranoia is really unbelievable. It’s unfortunate how it infects everything that you do around here.

If you were at all familiar with the Daily Mail, then you would know that they tend to write rambling headlines in sentence case. I was parodying that style.

And it’s obvious that you completely missed the point of my example. Again, the point was that headlines should not highlight details that have no relevance to the story itself. I tried to personalize it so that you would comprehend it, but you appear to be unable to comprehend even the simplest of metaphors.

You don’t know me in real life (nor do I have any desire for you to), but if you did, you’d know that accusing me of anti-Semitism is laughable at best. This is yet another McCarthyistic example of your penchant for inventing enemies who aren’t there, presumably because that’s far easier than it is to take responsibility.

If you were at all familiar with the Daily Mail, then you would know that they tend to write rambling headlines in sentence case. I was parodying that style.

I live in Detroit. Why would I bother reading Brit tabloids? As for parody, if you have to explain that it was humor, it probably wasn’t very humorous.

If you were writing in the style of the Daily Mail, I have to ask, does the Daily Mail typically not capitalize the word “Jew”?

All I’m asking for is a simple statement that you made a typo or some similar error. Since you won’t say that, the only logical conclusion is that it was deliberate.

You don’t know me in real life (nor do I have any desire for you to), but if you did, you’d know that accusing me of anti-Semitism is laughable at best.

Yes, I’m sure that you’ll tell us that you can’t be an anti-Semite because some of your best friends are Jewish.

Funny how the fact that some of my best friends and most of my customers are black is no defense when some progressive decides that it’s politically expedient to call me a racist.

The squeals of indignation when progressives are called out on behavior that they’d call bigoted if someone on the right did it are almost amusing. That shoe sure pinches when it’s on the other foot, don’t it?

All I’m asking for is a simple statement that you made a typo or some similar error.

The simple statement is that you don’t know how to read. Really.

I made up an example of a fake headline that was deliberately anti-Semitic. I did that to prove a point that I hoped that you would understand, namely that it is racist and sexist to emphasize details about race and gender in a headline that are not relevant to the story itself. Allow me to quote myself:

And it wouldn’t be any more appropriate to have a headline that read “Right wing likudist jew involved in costly car accident” had it been you. The fact that such a headline would be factually accurate would not be the point; it would be a no-brainer to conclude that only an anti-Semite would choose to craft such a headline, as your politics and creed have no bearing whatsoever on the story.

In response to my deliberately anti-Semitic headline, you respond by saying, “OhmigawdyouhateJews!!!” Which is to say that you completely and utterly missed the point.

And what’s very funny is that even though I told you that the example was deliberately anti-Semitic, you are not only horrified by the fact that it was anti-Semitic, when it was obviously meant to be, but that you don’t even understand why it was anti-Semitic.

Again, this goes back to your severe problems with reading comprehension, and why your writing is not to be trusted. Even when an example of irony is clearly identified for you, you still miss it. You are so busy misinterpreting things that you never interpret them properly in the first place. I don’t know where you got your education, but you need to take some courses in writing and research, and start over again.

In response to my deliberately anti-Semitic headline, you respond by saying, “OhmigawdyouhateJews!!!” Which is to say that you completely and utterly missed the point.

So I guess if I say “PCH101 loves niggers”, supposedly parodying some racist, you’re cool with that? You wouldn’t accuse me of using the N word gratuitously? Nigga, please!

If I’m the one with poor reading comprehension, please show me where I explicitly accused you of being a Jew hater. I choose my words very carefully. There have been Jew hating comments on TTAC. Few and far between, but there have been occasions where I’ve called people out on it and Ed agreed with me. I can’t say for sure that you are a Jew hater, just that you deliberately chose not to afford Jews and Judaism the same respect you give to Muslims. As I said before, you may have just been trying to get my goat. I’m agnostic on the subject.

And what’s very funny is that even though I told you that the example was deliberately anti-Semitic, you are not only horrified by the fact that it was anti-Semitic,

Again, regarding reading comprehension, where did I express horror over your supposedly anti-semitic supposed parody? I took exception to your own deliberate choice to not capitalize “jew”, something the subject of your parody, The Daily Mail, would never do. That was your little contribution.

when it was obviously meant to be, but that you don’t even understand why it was anti-Semitic.

Because, after all, as a Goy, you have learned so much more about anti-semitism than I have that you can tell me what I should be offended by. So I guess that I can tell black folks what is and what isn’t racist, right?

What’s sadly funny about this is that a lot of the European press rather routinely holds Israel and Jews to a double standard. And that’s tame and wholesome compared to the Julius Streicher level stuff you see in the Arab press.

When I see you publicly (wait, you’re an anonymous internet critic, of course you won’t stand by your own words publicly) condemn political cartoons of the state of Israel being caricatured as a hook-nosed orthodox Jew sucking blood from Arabs, I’ll believe that you have consistent values.

So I guess if I say “PCH101 loves niggers”, supposedly parodying some racist, you’re cool with that?

Ouch. Even when it’s spelled out for you slowly and painstakingly, you still don’t understand this at all. It is astonishing how adept you are at completely missing the point.

The Daily Mail and Autoblog headlines were sexist for the same reason that my hypothetical headline was racist. It had nothing to do with capitalization, and everything to do with the fact that singling out someone for his race or gender, when it bears no relevance on the story itself, is racist or sexist.

I can’t say for sure that you are a Jew hater, just that you deliberately chose not to afford Jews and Judaism the same respect you give to Muslims.

Honestly, I have no idea where you get this stuff. It’s as if you reside on a different planet, where English words are used but don’t have any of the same meanings that we use here on Earth. In any case, I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that this was a car forum, not The Truth About Monotheistic Religions.

Again, work on your comprehension skills. They are exceptionally poor. Your writing might improve if you spent less time botching up the meaning of what others say, and more time understanding what they actually meant.

I had zero issues with the AB article with the original wording. It’s a fact she was female. Should every article be sans gender and identification? Who needs censorship when you have political correctness?

I’m just waiting for the day when a headline reads “somebody somewhere murders some people, suspect can’t be described because we might get a letter.”

I was going to refrain from commenting on this article, but I think I may give myself an aneurysm if I don’t.

1. People are moaning that “liberals” (like it’s an insult to be liberal) are moaning about pointing out the fact that she is a woman and she had a crash. Well, she’s also white. So by that logic, we can extrapolate the “fact” that white people can’t drive? It’s just as arbitrary. Maybe we should highlight the fact that she’s a human being? Therefore, human beings can’t drive?

2. To all the moaning sods out there banging on about “political correctness screwing this country up and that people should lighten up”, may I point out that I did a similar thing about catholicism on this article:

And far from people laughing in the spirit of “political wrongness”, everyone got rather huffy about it. I just find it amazing how people bang on about “political correctness going to far”….until it’s THEIR sensibilities being mocked. Then, suddenly, we should have some “decency”.

We have received many requests (open and backchannel) to moderate this thread. There are minefields even the most gutsy moderator won’t walk into. This is one of them.

In the future, it would be highly appreciated if religion can be kept out of these discussions. Politics seem to be inseparable from cars, but dareisayit, a Toyota Hilux serves Taliban commandos and Benedictine monks alike, with utter disregard to race, creed or color.